Rich, a homeless man who asked that his last name not be used, takes a nap in front of the Boulder Public Library on Monday in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso / Staff Photographer)

During a much anticipated study session on homelessness Tuesday night, the Boulder City Council offered clear collective direction on two key points.

First, the council agreed, the city should explore creating a permanent day shelter and resource center. There’s no consistent space for the homeless of Boulder to rest and to access services right now, which is hard on the homeless, hard on the churches that have to rotate responsibility for donating space and hard on the officials struggling to coordinate intake of clients in order to better understand the population.

Second, council members emphatically agreed, directing the police department in recent months to stand down on the city’s camping ban was a mistake. Boulder bans sleeping outdoors, but hasn’t criminalized it lately as much as it used to. Now, the Civic Area and Boulder Creek Path are popular camping spots, and the city’s elected representatives are fed up.

Continuing, and this is where it gets interesting:

The theoretical day shelter and resource center, Councilwoman Lisa Morzel said, would be a benefit to the community at large, but would also help satisfy the council’s growing interest in understanding which homeless people have ties to Boulder, and which do not.

With better intake and data from a one-stop shop, Morzel said, the city could finally begin to isolate the undesirables.

“We hear anecdotal issues from people, where we get a lot of transients or travelers or whatever you want to call these individuals that come in and access various services, and then the individuals from our community aren’t able to access them so easily,” she added . . .

Boulder Police Department Chief Greg Testa spoke at length to the council. He instructed his officers to lighten up significantly on enforcement of the camping ban, which one year ago was called into question when the Department of Justice found a similar ban in Boise, Idaho, was unconstitutional.

The council agreed. Allowing people to sleep outdoors was a mistake, Morzel said.

“Our direction to you — which I appreciate you following — was a fiasco,” she told the chief. “It was not a good thing. We’ve basically turned our public spaces into de facto camping grounds, and that is unacceptable.”

A few things have changed over the past few months, though, that suggest re-enforcement of the ban may lead to slightly different results this time around.

On July 25, the city began a pilot program to divert ticketed homeless people from jail. Those issued summonses were given the option of completing four hours of community service. If they presented evidence of that service to a judge, they went free. But 13 of the 17 involved in the program failed to even appear in court, according to the latest data. (Emphasis is mine — MRW).

It’s a program that will continue, though it’s unclear how the city can incentivize showing up for court dates.

Meanwhile, more changes are afoot inside the county courthouse. A program called Navigator began this spring, with an aim to have judges and probation officers connect homeless defendants to services — around employment, health, substance abuse and housing, among others — more quickly, then monitor their progress. Twelve cases have been completed in that program so far, which means a dozen homeless people have a path to at least be considered for housing in the future.

The biggest question entering Tuesday night is still unsettled. If Boulder is ever going to open a tiny homes village or dedicate city-owned land for legal camping, it’ll have to be decided another day . . .

Where, homeless advocates wondered on social media and in brief interviews after the meeting, will all the soon-to-be shunted Civic Area and Creek Path denizens go now?

How about transients from outside of Boulder County going back to Denver or wherever else they came from in the first place? Why not prioritize local homeless shelter / services for those who can show valid photo ID with a Boulder County address and proof of at least one year’s residency? This could reduce homeless numbers by more than half, and make it entirely possible for the current nonprofits to deal effectively with our own homeless people. It’s certainly worth a try . . .

Boulder police officers might offer those transients committing petty offenses a choice of either being cited into court here or accepting the $5 bus ticket on RTD bound for Denver (with a sack lunch to-go tossed in). My guess is that 90% would board the Flatirons Flyer (under the watchful eye of an officer).

This really is NOT rocket science, folks. Other cities are NOT as bumfuzzled as Boulder, CO — so it’s time we adopted the best practices they have used for many years.

More than half the people who sought help at Bridge House’s new resource center for the homeless had lived in Boulder less than six months, according to data released Wednesday by the day shelter and social service agency.

The information came from intake forms filled out by 417 people who sought help at the off-site resource center between October and April and was collected by Bridge House in an effort to better understand who Boulder’s homeless population is and what services it needs.

Asked where they lived prior to becoming homeless, 31 percent said they lived in other parts of Colorado and 32 percent said they came from another state. The other 37 percent are from Boulder or Boulder County.

Asked how long they had lived in Boulder, 52 percent said less than sixmonths. Another 38 percent had lived here more than a year.

Now we’re seeing the negative consequences all over Boulder County.

Here’s the last thing I said on the Boulder Rights Watch Facebook page, before I was blocked by one the chief apologists / enablers for the worst-behaved transients, Darren O’Connor:

I “advocate” for nonprofits here to give priority to Boulder County’s own homeless residents AND to spend their dollars wisely on projects to benefit the greatest number of those homeless men, women, and children. The FAILURE to do this should weigh on everyone’s conscience . . .

Please support me in taking care of our own FIRST, transients from elsewhere to the end of the line for available shelter / services, if any.

See this blog’s Boulder Rights Watch tag archive here. These posts tell the story of a Facebook group which consistently supports the small minority of the worst-behaved transients who drift into Boulder County, CO — to the detriment of most other homeless folks and the general public.

Worst of all, the admins and many members of this group are AFRAID of vigorous debate on the most pressing social issue of the day in our fair city: How to make life better for Boulder County’s own homeless men, women, and children. Darren O’Connor, Mike Homner, Joy Eckstine Redstone, et al want to do all of your thinking for you.

Their attitude is un-American, but so very typical of lunatic fringe groups both Left and Right.

Based on Boulder Rights Watch’s Vision and Mission Statements, I have blocked Max Weller from this group. While I found he didn’t make personal attacks on individuals here, his positions consistently fail or go against our intent. While his voice in the community is appropriate, it is not so in a forum such as this where we are seeking to “lovingly address the needs of those living without a permanent place to call home.”

Vision Statement:Our vision is a city that leads by example in recognizing the value of all community members, including our unhoused neighbors. We endeavor to tap the capabilities, talents, and experiences of Boulder’s housed and unhoused citizens to creatively and lovingly address the needs of those living without a permanent place to call home. Throughout the process, our city will acknowledge and respect the rights of everyone that collectively calls Boulder home.

Mission Statement:To recognize and expand the rights of and respect for unhoused people and their property

Member:I’m appalled that you felt the need to block Max Weller from this forum, Darren. I thought the forum was to recognize the value of ALL community members…not just the ones that agreed with you and your opinions. Please block me, too…I do not want to be a part of such a closed-minded group.

Darren O’Connor: I’m sorry ____, but we risked losing more people by having Max’s opinions shared here (emphasis is mine — MRW), consistently in disagreement with what we are attempting to accomplish. I would be sorry to lose you, and I certainly won’t block you.

Member: Maybe because Max is telling the other side of the story, Darren. Please block me….

Darren O’Connor: You are welcome to remove yourself from the group, ____, you do not require me to take such action for you. To do so, click on the “Joined” button at the top of the page, and select “Leave Group”.

To set the record straight about BRW’s numbers: When I joined the group it had about 120+ members; during the short time I was a member, it gained several dozen more and now has 180+. I’m sure Mr. O’Connor can count just as well as he can LIE.